In its quest to implement stealth amnesty, the Obama Administration is working behind the scenes to halt the deportation of certain illegal immigrants by granting them “unlawful presence waivers.”

The new measure would apply to illegal aliens who are relatives of American citizens. Here is how it would work, according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement posted in today’s Federal Register, the daily journal of the U.S. government; the agency will grant “unlawful presence waivers” to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative that’s a U.S. citizen.

Currently such aliens must return to their native country and request a waiver of inadmissibility in an existing overseas immigrant visa process. In other words, they must enter the U.S. legally as thousands of foreigners do on a yearly basis. Besides the obvious security issues, changing this would be like rewarding bad behavior in a child. It doesn’t make sense.....

Rockntractor

04-03-2012, 07:22 PM

Why doesn't Obama just have a speech and say "I am the law in this country", he certainly thinks he is.

Elspeth

04-03-2012, 07:26 PM

Why doesn't Obama just have a speech and say "I am the law in this country", he certainly thinks he is.

The "unitary executive"=dictator.

And yes, he does think he is. The executive branch has almost completed its coup against the legislative branch, which was supposed to be paramount.

Rockntractor

04-03-2012, 09:44 PM

Butt there is something disturbing about this thread title?http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/scare/smileys-scare-394425.gif (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/)

Bailey

04-04-2012, 07:14 AM

Butt there is something disturbing about this thread title?http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/scare/smileys-scare-394425.gif (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/)

I bet certain rump rangers perked up when they read that title :D

Zeus

04-04-2012, 11:30 AM

I have a question for some of y'all. The illegal immigrant situation is such that there is no easy answer. Is there any situation in which you would grant amnesty/permit current illegals the right to remain in the US and pursue citizenship ? If so what/how.

Bailey

04-04-2012, 11:38 AM

I have a question for some of y'all. The illegal immigrant situation is such that there is no easy answer. Is there any situation in which you would grant amnesty/permit current illegals the right to remain in the US and pursue citizenship ? If so what/how.

No they have to leave and reapply.

Zeus

04-04-2012, 11:54 AM

No they have to leave and reapply.

How you going to enforce that. The man power and hours involved and the result would be reminiscent of FDR and the Japanese & Italians in the 40's. you think the country would stand for that ?

Novaheart

04-04-2012, 12:02 PM

I have a question for some of y'all. The illegal immigrant situation is such that there is no easy answer. Is there any situation in which you would grant amnesty/permit current illegals the right to remain in the US and pursue citizenship ? If so what/how.

Deport them all. It's the only fair thing to do. We should not give preference to by virtue of the fact that they chose to have children here; such would be the most outward expression of their arrogance and disregard for our country and its laws that they clearly had no intention of ever leaving. We should not reward anyone for violating our border and our laws.

Zeus

04-04-2012, 12:22 PM

Deport them all. It's the only fair thing to do. We should not give preference to by virtue of the fact that they chose to have children here; such would be the most outward expression of their arrogance and disregard for our country and its laws that they clearly had no intention of ever leaving. We should not reward anyone for violating our border and our laws.

Lot of people feel that way but that's not going to happen.

The boarders need to be sealed,some type of conditional dispensation has to be arrived at concerning current illegals. what that conditional dispensation is debatable. 2005 estimates but the number of illegals in the USA at 18 - 20 million that's a lot of people to round up, detain & deport.

Rockntractor

04-04-2012, 12:24 PM

Lot of people feel that way but that's not going to happen.

The boarders need to be sealed,some type of conditional dispensation has to be arrived at concerning current illegals. what that conditional dispensation is debatable. 2005 estimates but the number of illegals in the USA at 18 - 20 million that's a lot of people to round up, detain & deport.

20 million jobs that belong to US citizens.

Novaheart

04-04-2012, 12:29 PM

Lot of people feel that way but that's not going to happen.

The boarders need to be sealed,some type of conditional dispensation has to be arrived at concerning current illegals. what that conditional dispensation is debatable. 2005 estimates but the number of illegals in the USA at 18 - 20 million that's a lot of people to round up, detain & deport.

If we allow the 12 million illegals currently in this country to remain, they will in a matter of about 36 years be able to vote down the border on the basis of their own increase plus the ones already here from the Reagan amnesty.

Novaheart

04-04-2012, 12:35 PM

18 - 20 million that's a lot of people to round up, detain & deport.

It can be done.

Punish employers.
Punish landlords.
Punish "sanctuary cities"
Threaten the United Church of Christ and anyone else who harbors illegals.
Take down those god damned Spanish language signs.

Pass a law that says that any amnesty legislation or action by the executive branch must be coupled with a 100% elimination of welfare benefits. Make it very clear to the American people that a safety net is not possible as long as illegals are here, as long as the border is not secure, as long as we have foreigners sponsoring and importing "family" members at will.

m00

04-04-2012, 12:57 PM

Lot of people feel that way but that's not going to happen.

The boarders need to be sealed,some type of conditional dispensation has to be arrived at concerning current illegals. what that conditional dispensation is debatable. 2005 estimates but the number of illegals in the USA at 18 - 20 million that's a lot of people to round up, detain & deport.

I concur with you on this.

So first of all, the entire discussion of deportation is entirely moot until the borders are secured. I don't even think it's worth having the conversation, illegal aliens are entering the country far faster than we could ever deport them even with ideal laws in place.

Second of all, think about all the steps & government employees involved in deporting an illegal. You have to find him, identify him & make sure he's an illegal, transport him to some holding facility, arrange transport across the border, and then have the transportation available and coordinate with where you are dropping him off. Deporting 18-20 million people implies a massive expansion of the US government. The logistics are next to impossible... worth pointing out that Nazi Germany couldn't even deport 6 million jews (the death camps were the final solution because deportation wasn't economically viable).

Lets say for sake of argument that from start to finish, when you add up ALL the associated costs, deporting a person from start to finish costs a thousand dollars. And I think that's on the cheap side, and the actual cost would be higher. Deporting 20 million people would then cost greater than 20 Billion and also expand the federal government. As much as I wish I could wave a magic wand and make the illegals teleport back to their country of origin, I don't think it's feasible to send them all home in reality.

Novaheart

04-04-2012, 04:15 PM

Second of all, think about all the steps & government employees involved in deporting an illegal. You have to find him, identify him & make sure he's an illegal, transport him to some holding facility, arrange transport across the border, and then have the transportation available and coordinate with where you are dropping him off. Deporting 18-20 million people implies a massive expansion of the US government. The logistics are next to impossible... worth pointing out that Nazi Germany couldn't even deport 6 million jews (the death camps were the final solution because deportation wasn't economically viable). .

I frankly get tired of people saying it can't be done when we haven't even tried. Not under Reagan, Clinton, Bush, or Obama or anyone after Eisenhower. We did deport large numbers of people after WWII in Operation Wetback.

WIKI:

History

Burgeoning numbers of Mexican migrants prompted President Dwight D. Eisenhower to appoint General Joseph Swing as INS Commissioner. According to Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., Eisenhower had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration upon taking office. In a letter to Senator J. William Fulbright, Eisenhower quoted a report in The New York Times that said, "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."[2]

[edit]Operation Wetback in action

The effort began in California and Arizona in 1954 and coordinated 1,075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies. Tactics employed included going house to house in Mexican-American neighborhoods and citizenship checks during standard traffic stops.

Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 illegal aliens were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal aliens are believed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimated that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their own accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory before releasing them.

Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships: the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 km) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles (1,600 km). Deportation by sea was ended after seven deportees jumped overboard from the Mercurio and drowned, provoking a mutiny that led to a public outcry in Mexico.[

Gentleman Pirate

04-04-2012, 04:50 PM

I bet certain rump rangers perked up when they read that title :D

Including Rock, TXradioguy and Mau10man...

no homo.....

Zeus

04-04-2012, 05:23 PM

Mass deportation as much as some would like is just not feasible outside of a massive increase in govt and financial deficits. Secure the borders and as unpopular as it is some form of amnesty / trail to citizenship will have to be done. Restrictive citizenship of some sort that doesn't end up being a burden on the rest of society.

enough with the shoulda' , coulda' , woulda' , the problem is no longer in the past it is in the here & now and future.

I don't think the country as a whole would back mass deportations even if it was logistically & financially possible. The political will isn't in our governing bodies either.

Novaheart

04-04-2012, 08:49 PM

Mass deportation as much as some would like is just not feasible outside of a massive increase in govt and financial deficits. Secure the borders and as unpopular as it is some form of amnesty / trail to citizenship will have to be done. Restrictive citizenship of some sort that doesn't end up being a burden on the rest of society.

enough with the shoulda' , coulda' , woulda' , the problem is no longer in the past it is in the here & now and future.

I don't think the country as a whole would back mass deportations even if it was logistically & financially possible. The political will isn't in our governing bodies either.

Each illegal alien has the potential to have two or more children. Each one of those children will cost the American taxpayer $9,000 to $16,000 for an uncomplicated delivery, and then about $12,000 a year in public education for 12 years. So a heterosexual illegal alien couple, even if they obey the law in every other way, have the potential to cost the US some $624,000. I think we can deport them for a lot less than that.

Novaheart

04-04-2012, 08:52 PM

I bet certain rump rangers perked up when they read that title :D

Which grade of junior high school are you permanently stuck in?

Elspeth

04-05-2012, 12:56 AM

It can be done.

Pass a law that says that any amnesty legislation or action by the executive branch must be coupled with a 100% elimination of welfare benefits. Make it very clear to the American people that a safety net is not possible as long as illegals are here, as long as the border is not secure, as long as we have foreigners sponsoring and importing "family" members at will.

That might do it.

Californians would be grateful. Our middle class is overwhelmed.

noonwitch

04-05-2012, 09:48 AM

Mass deportation as much as some would like is just not feasible outside of a massive increase in govt and financial deficits. Secure the borders and as unpopular as it is some form of amnesty / trail to citizenship will have to be done. Restrictive citizenship of some sort that doesn't end up being a burden on the rest of society.

enough with the shoulda' , coulda' , woulda' , the problem is no longer in the past it is in the here & now and future.

I don't think the country as a whole would back mass deportations even if it was logistically & financially possible. The political will isn't in our governing bodies either.

I agree that deporting all the illegal immigrants is just not feasable, even if it seems like the appropriate thing to do. The focus has to be on stopping more illegals from coming here to begin with.

I don't think illegal immigrants should be allowed to get welfare, though. And I support amnesty in some cases, especially in those that involve close family ties with legal immigrants and in which no other criminal activity beyond the immigration status is involved.

Starbuck

04-05-2012, 10:46 AM

I have a question for some of y'all. The illegal immigrant situation is such that there is no easy answer. Is there any situation in which you would grant amnesty/permit current illegals the right to remain in the US and pursue citizenship ? If so what/how.

If they have American children who have never lived anywhere except America and are attending an English speaking school they should be given a period of time to pass the citizenship test which must be taken in English. They must forfeit all other citizenships.

Odysseus

04-05-2012, 12:20 PM

How you going to enforce that. The man power and hours involved and the result would be reminiscent of FDR and the Japanese & Italians in the 40's. you think the country would stand for that ?

Illegal immigration is an economic problem with social and political overtones, but the fundamental solution must be economic. Whenever you artificially inflate the price of a commodity, you create a black market, which entails smuggling, illicit sales venues, falsification of compliance documents and violent infighting between the black marketeers. Sound familiar? Simply put, illegal immigration is black market labor, which exists because we have created a complex system that punishes the hiring of legal workers. If you free up the labor market, then there is no economic incentive to break the rules, and employers won't bother with the risks associated with hiring illegals.

So, how do we free the markets? Simple. First you eliminate expensive mandates on entry-level jobs. Expensive health plans, minimum wage laws and labor cartels (unions) that create artificial scarcity drive up the cost of labor. Entry level jobs should not require the same investment as long term hires. The main benefit of an entry level job to the employee is not the immediate benefits of wages, but the acquisition of experience and a work history that will enable that worker to progress to better jobs. Our current policy restricts entry level jobs, perpetuates high unemployment among those who most need their first job (young adults and teens, especially minority young adults, who cannot always afford expensive schooling) and creates a permanent underclass of illegal laborers who cannot enforce contracts and have no recourse to deal with disputes, except through violence.

Free the legal market and you eliminate the illegal market.

Novaheart

04-05-2012, 12:36 PM

So, how do we free the markets? Simple. First you eliminate expensive mandates on entry-level jobs. Expensive health plans, minimum wage laws and labor cartels (unions) that create artificial scarcity drive up the cost of labor. .

Contrary to popular belief, illegal aliens do not work for less than minwage, not even in ag. Most of the jobs they hold do not come with employer paid/shared healthcare regardless of who is doing those jobs- these people get healthcare at the emergency room, ie the most expensive healthcare we could possibly provide them. Virtually none of these positions are unionized or in danger of being unionized.

These people also are not exempt from Workers Comp, but paying people under the table and pretending you don't have any employees certainly saves you on Workers Comp.

The employment of illegal labor is not to save money on the black market, it is to exploit those who have little or no legal recourse. It is part and parcel of the small (and sometimes large) business person's effort to cheat on his taxes. Joe's Home Remodeling doesn't use illegal labor because they work better or cheaper, he uses them because he can pay them in cash, and hide his own business and income. Which is why we need to make it painful for people to employ illegal aliens. Joe isn't cheating on his taxes because he can't afford to pay taxes, look in his driveway. He is cheating on his taxes because he doesn't want to pay taxes.

Odysseus

04-05-2012, 01:52 PM

Contrary to popular belief, illegal aliens do not work for less than minwage, not even in ag. Most of the jobs they hold do not come with employer paid/shared healthcare regardless of who is doing those jobs- these people get healthcare at the emergency room, ie the most expensive healthcare we could possibly provide them. Virtually none of these positions are unionized or in danger of being unionized.

But they do cost less, because, as you pointed out, there is no withholding, and they do not incur the same compliance costs.

These people also are not exempt from Workers Comp, but paying people under the table and pretending you don't have any employees certainly saves you on Workers Comp.

That it does. You've identified another mandate that drives up the cost of hiring.

The employment of illegal labor is not to save money on the black market, it is to exploit those who have little or no legal recourse. It is part and parcel of the small (and sometimes large) business person's effort to cheat on his taxes. Joe's Home Remodeling doesn't use illegal labor because they work better or cheaper, he uses them because he can pay them in cash, and hide his own business and income. Which is why we need to make it painful for people to employ illegal aliens. Joe isn't cheating on his taxes because he can't afford to pay taxes, look in his driveway. He is cheating on his taxes because he doesn't want to pay taxes.

No, the exploitation of those who have little or no recourse is part of the appeal, but only because it permits those employers who are using them to pay them below minimum wages, evade mandatory standards and even deny payment, but these are all functions of the primary issue, which is that they are black market labor. If the financial incentives to hire workers who are off the grid are reduced or eliminated, then the illegals will not be in as much demand. Take Joe's Home Remodeling. Joe hires illegals because they are cheaper, by your own admission. He doesn't have to pay taxes on them, workman's comp, Social Security, health benefits or prevailing union wages. The mandated benefits, i.e., workman's comp, Social Security, health coverage and minimum wages, are really taxes on his business, but because they are imposed as regulatory burdens, we tend not to think of them that way. Government is setting up programs and funding them through money extorted from Joe, but it's evading the tax label by making Joe collect it and provide the services. Thomas Sowell pointed out that if, as Justice Marshall said, the power to tax is the power to destroy, then the power to regulate is the power to extort. Government mandates are extortion, a means of taxing without legislating. The expenses imposed on Joe are taxes whose benefits, the provision of goods and services, accrue to the government that mandates them. It also puts the burden of compliance on Joe, who is now delegated as a bookkeeper for the IRS.

Joe is, by your own argument, hiring illegals because they are cheaper, and just as important, less hassle.

Also, Joe doesn't get to hide his business unless he is taking in cash, which the government doesn't see. Most people won't pay for a new house or extensive remodeling in cash. Joe's expenses on those projects are materials and labor, which he can deduct, but not if his labor is paid off the books. He actually loses money on his taxes by not being able to declare his expenses, but he has to pay cash in order to get the cheaper labor. Joe only benefits if his illegal labor is cheaper than the regulatory burden, compliance costs and covers the lost deductions to his taxes. When you consider that most workers cost twice their salary in total costs to an employer, Joe is doing quite well on the deal, but only because the regulatory market has been set up that way.

Oh, I almost forgot, the black market provides another incentive: It allows Joe to take out his competitors with a well-placed call to ICE, and to maintain his own business with a few judicious payoffs to political campaigns. A new competitor has to either be prepared to lose his workforce whenever Joe makes the call, or he has to comply with the system, but either way, it works as a bar to entry for new competitors. That's why Joe might fight to keep the system in place.